[...] Think Defence [...]

Admin old chap, having been in both the Jolly old RN, and the Army – then of course everything is the RAF’s fault !

The RN never over states anything, that is its fault. Its supporters may stress some of these arguments heavily, and really what does it matter if at some point when both the ‘Naval Strike Wing’ were in country, and the Marines at the same time that the RN then, and only then, provided over 40 % of the manpower – its still a valid point.

However, the argument not being had, in the context of saving the RN or any other aspect of future UK security is that the Afghanistan is NOT the pattern for ‘wars to come’ – it is an aberration. A politically badly planned and badly executed attempt to provide western democratic principles to people who really could not give a flying fig about such principles.

So its easy really – want to “save the RN” and the RAF for that matter – then pull the army and all supporting arms out of a conflict they can never win, because our government, after 9 years has yet to describe what winning will look like ! The reason we should not be attempting nation building has nothing to do with our armed forces, and everything to do with pathetic, middle of the road politicians with no vision, no balls and no clue !

:-)

Your right it was a good read finished it just over an hour ago, there are some good points raised but I agree it is a little typical of the ‘Save the Royal Navy’ crowd however I’m probably in that crowd. Even the ‘Save the Royal Navy’ type arguments do have basis to them or they would either not exist or would be easy to dismiss completely. Just like any form of media there are only part truths no whole truths, I believe it’s up to the reader to determine what they think is closest to the whole truth. That’s a point that many people could do with learning as I agree with the point made about journalism “At a time when journalism, the defense variant included, can be likened to the “industrialisation of gossip,” the facts are less important than the narrative-it is the impression that counts”.

I think one of the biggest problems in defence is the skewing effect that the current operations are having on the structure of armed forces in the ‘West’ especially naval forces. I do however accept the premise that many armed forces were far too focussed on state on state conflict rather than other scenarios but there was more than a creeping realisation that change was needed.

Could you recommend any reports, analysis or articles that are worth a read and that would seem more balanced?

Its a good read but it loses any authority when he starts the well trodden path of blaming the RAF for almost everything and talking about Afghanistan as a diversion for the Naval Strike Wing.

It is also typical of the ‘Save the Royal Navy’ crowd that they talk about 40% of the people in Afghanistan are from the Royal Navy, yes, when 3 Commando are the light brigade in theatre but how many tours have they done?

What about his claims that half of air strikes in Afghanistan are from aircraft carriers.

This is actually a good example of why the RN is in such a state, the overstating of their worth to current operations and the talk of diversions just paints them as wanting to get on with the business of the Royal Navy, not of the UK’s security

I think i’ve found something for me to read when i have the time and concentration http://tinyurl.com/ybgsw4u

ABM on a batch 2 T45 sounds like a nice idea, but nice as it is I don’t see it happening. AFAIK the only people in range of us with anything less than an ICBM is the rest of Europe, and as much as we don’t get along I doubt we need a missile shield to defend from them. I hate to pin the job on the Americans, but I don’t see us spending all the development costs for the software and the missile.

On the other hand, Euan has brought up the concept of batches, and if we do decide to build either/both C1 or/and C2 on T45 hulls then this would be as good a time as any to sneak another 2-4 T45′s in.

Jed it’s 7pm for you over there in Canada or there abouts, it’s just past midnight over here so officially happy new year from Scotland.

The ABM potential of the T45 lies mainly with the S1850M derived from the Thales Smart-L which has been tested in this area by the Dutch and found to be capable of tracking targets. The PAAMS system would most likely need software updates alongside missile integration to be ABM capable I’ve no idea on details. The missile itself would bear little resemblance to the current Aster 15/30 there are quite a few PDF’s out there about what could be done links some great info can be found here> http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=94937.

As for TLAM it would physically fit into the A70 launcher from what I understand however the missile would need to be integrated with the launcher and combat system which would need to be paid for with all the costs and risk being on the UK. Fitting the Mk41 raises an interesting quandary as you would need to integrate the launcher with the combat system as well as the missile with the combat system so still 2 integrations to be done which would be easier who knows. Of course using the Mk41 would open the possibility of then integrating the SM-3 rather than the new Aster missile variants but would also cause a problem of having 2 launchers. There would also be the option of using the Scalp Naval however, TLAM is in service and more capable as well as being cheaper to buy.

As an odd side comment, if the RN by some miracle ended up with 2 CVF and 36 escorts (excluding C3’s) we would maybe need to reassure the French that we still like them. The RN would be by far the most powerful and largest European Navy as well as ranked within the top 5 Global naval powers. Easily argued as overkill by many markers such as GDP and population but adequate for the size of our political rhetoric.

I guess my Happy New Year was a bit early – but should you lot not be out on the piss on your side of the Altantic ?

ABM – something I had completely forgotten – even in my ‘part 2′ on the sub fleet. I had to resubmit that to Admin as I mistakenly sent it in ODT (OpenOffice) format, but it covers the strategic deterrent as part of the sub fleets tasking.

Anyway, I think I read somwhere about a future development of Aster 90 model as Euro answer to Standard SM3. Don’t know what PAAM’s capabilities are in this respect though.

I would definately be up for spending deterrent force budget on more T45′s with an ABM capability !

I presume Aster 90 would have bigger booster requiring Sylver A70 – but Grim the A70 is NOT compatible with Tomahawk. The A70 launcher was developed for France for SCALP-N land attack missile. If you want Tomahawk on the surface fleet you need U.S. MK41 VLS in its biggest “strike length” format.

You’re not the first or the only person to say that everyone has said the same thing they would alter the hangar to be a large double hangar sized for 2 Merlin which would be more flexible. Changing the hangar would alter costs by only a tiny fraction as this is only a developmental design so far and would be well worth the hassle.

A batch 2 T45, which is arguably not that farfetched as all our ships are built in batches, should be fitted with additional vertical launch systems and be capable of deploying an ABM variant of the aster. Since batch 2 would in this case be an additional 6 ships if they were all equipped as such it would allow the Carriers or major assets always to deploy with an ABM capable T45 alongside a batch 1 T45. The 2 T45’s pairing as the Aegis ships do to track and engage the target, easily possible as you have said and the systems to do this have been looked at and possibly are in development. Having 6 type 45’s so equipped would open the possibility for an independent European missile shield alongside the French and Italians using European radar systems and missiles.

Euan, I like that C1 design you posted, it would work well. The only thing i’d change is getting rid of the silly mini-hangar and add that space to the full size hangar for another helicopter, if they want to put an MQ8 with a Merlin, that’s fine, great even, but don’t build a hangar just for that MQ8, what if the next gen. version is too big to fit?

In my lala i’d love 12 T45′s. I’d have 3 or 4 of them altered to track and engage ABM’s (it is possible and an Aster ABM was/is being worked on). Of course tha batch would have 12 A70 launchers added to carry ABM’s or Tomahawks. That way one or two can be used to protect fleets in hostile regions or one or 2 in the English Channel could be used to form the UK’s own little Ballistic shield.

It’s not new year here yet:D

Hey Grim no worries I’m just a bit nerdy in that I read quite a bit into things so when I seen PAAMS costing a huge amount of money I like to break it down to see what they are including in that price.
T45 elements % Value (assumes total is £1bn each)
Design 8% £80m
Management 14% £140m
Production-steel 3% £30m
Production – outfit 7% £70m
Production-materials 9% £90m
Combat mission systems 11% £110m
PAAMs 48% £480m
You’re right Sampson would be overkill for a general purpose frigate but I feel the Artisan is a little light on capabilities for a front line frigate, look at what the Dutch are building onto the new Holland class. Something in-between would be nice but there is nothing that I can think of off the top of my head and nothing that is British or will be in service. One reason for bothering is CEC (Cooperative Engagement Capability) additional powerful radars integrated with the fleet would be a major bonus and would allow the C1 to both carry and use Aster 30 or cue one fired from a T45.

I hear what you are saying about the C2 and I do see the point it would be useful to be able to call in the C2 and fit them to a C1 standard increasing the number of fully capable ASW frigates within a shorter time than building new vessels. The BVT C1 proposal would be the ideal hull to be used for this as it looks to be a flexible design if a little under equipped: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_cys2T5FgJdo/SrhLX_Z_RaI/AAAAAAAAHMw/LoHL8qFOhqs/s1600-h/Future+Surface+Combatant.JPG

The numbers were form loopy lala land thinking in other words if the RN was given some extra cash and shipbuilding became an industry that was deemed important. With 12 type 45 we could cover our own assets assuming 2 CVF and 2 LPH as well as assigning a T45 to an allied battle group and possibly one as UK guardship/fleet ready escort. However your point is still valid if it were a choice between more T45’s and something else more useful then yes it would be wise to go for something else but in loopy lala land we get both.

Jed nice to see we share that opinion a balanced fleet would be a good fleet in my opinion and as pointed out above I’m sure we would find jobs for them all and it would mean the RFA could go back to doing full time support work. CAMM is an active radar seeker which should explain the data link question as well the missile draws some of its design from the ASRAAM such as control surfaces and rocket motors. Artisan is a basic 3D radar set from BAE derived from lessons learned from Sampson and MESAR programs it’s somewhat similar to the Thales SMART-S and they competed for the T23 radar replacement contract. Happy hunting there is only fragments of information out there the last time I checked but hopefully there is more to find.

A diesel electric Absalon would be a wise investment especially since the UK does have expertise here with the T23 and then T45 propulsion system being IFEP as well as the carriers. Converteam has developed a smaller electric motor that would be ideal for the purpose although as you said shaft I presume you mean azimuth pods? I have heard an odd argument that Absalon from a sonar point of view is interesting as it uses big slow diesels similar to a commercial ship so sounds a bit like one compared to the normal gas turbine warship propulsion. They were mainly chosen as they are low cost to run and maintain with a large user base with plenty of people trained to use them in the commercial world. No idea how true the sonar point is, any experience with sonar to clarify it for me? I like the idea of fitting sonar but would be capability creep towards the C1 and the bean counters would be looking at them thinking there is duplicated roles but one is cheaper. My reasoning behind Absalon is cost vs capability the Danes paid less than £200 million for each ship and I would like to keep it that way as it allows money to be spent elsewhere like getting more C3’s or something else.

Happy New Year shipmates !

ROFL – it appears we share the same “loopla” land as I would like to see a well balanced force of 36 surface ships, and I would accept fitting CAMM instead of SAAM / Aster 15 to my C1 concept in order to get those numbers ! Is CAMM Imaging infra-red homing ? Does it have a data link to update it in flight to achieve that range ?

I have to admit my ignorance as to the Artisan radar, I will go Google it immediately !

Thanks for the link to Warship – yes I guess it will need a proxy – darn it….

In my fantasy world the Absalon based C2 derivative would be mostly an ASW / ASuW platform for ‘big war’ as well as multi-role “peacetime” so yes I would envisage a towed array / VDS being fitted, such as the Thales CAPTAS Nano, a non-developmental off the shelf item, which is a cousin to the 2087 set. While we are at it, I would change the Absalon based C2 to diesel electric propulsion, replacing the noisy shafts and gear boxes with electric propulsors.

Grim – ref MQ8 – it is a rapidly maturing system. For ISR / Recce it can have its standard EO fit, and it can carry a small SAR/MTI radar, but I have to admit I am not sure if a maritime search radar has been trialled yet. It can carry Hellfire and thus could carry the LMM (Starstreak evloution) or gun pods, or laser guided 70mm rockets for ASuW. It don’t think its big enough for ASW, but it might be able to carry a single Stingray ?? The USMC has also done some tests in its UAV logistics programme, with an MQ8 delivering cargo pods. So it they do have pretty decent utility. The other reason I would not put a manned helo on the C3 is to stop it from being used where a ‘real’ frigate should be used instead !

Ref Ocean, Mistrals and Grims statement: “CVF is too far gone to be cancelled, so stop toying with the idea, pretty please.”

Well OK then – in that case Ocean will be replaced by the 2 biggest LPH in the world, so best we buy some helicopters to fly from them…. :-)

Euan, my apologies on the PAAMS costs, I only made a cursory glance of them, I happily take it back. But still, is SAMPSON really necessary for C1? It isn’t quite enough to make it into a T45 type AAW vessel, and is more than an ASW/GP frigate requires, which raises the question of why bother?

Sorry I should have been more clear on my C2 idea, when I say stripped down, I mean a more “Fitted for but not with” scenario as in the T45, where CIWS and Harpoon launchers are provisioned for and can be bolted on at 24-48 hours notice. On top of that, the design (for C1 and C2) would need to keep in mind future expansion to meet threats (such as the T45 ability to add 12 A70 launchers for cruise missiles/loitering munitions during refit). That of course means that C1 and C2 are essentially the same with equipment shifting about as necessary or being increased if necessary. It also means that if a larger number of high end vessels are needed in a crisis, you don’t necessarily need more hulls, just to take equipment of C1”s in refit and put it on a C2. Of course this means that equipment actually has to be bought so C1 can’t be skimped on like T45 (fortunately a lot will be coming from T23 so it isn’t a big deal).

Failing that however, an Absalon would be fine in my view for C2, but it’s likely the RN would want to change the weapons fit to match the fleet, and may decide C2 doesn’t need AShM’s.

For the numbers thing, I don’t think that the RN will really need 12 T45′s at this point, especially with only 2 carriers, of which only one will deployed at once (along with another amphibious group perhaps). I would advocate 8 realistically, or possibly up to 10 if we could ever attract export orders to cover some costs (remember back when the Saudi’s wanted 2?). If we had the money for 12 i’d rather see the money going into a couple of extra C1/2/3′s depending on final capabilities/roles of each and/or LPH replacement, of which we should buy 2 so we don’t have to deploy a 60,000 ton carrier as an LPH.

Grim in the T45 cost breakdown the PAAMS system cost includes all of the R&D costs for the PAAMS command system, the missiles themselves as well as the Sampson radar these have been spent and are non recurring. That R&D accounts for a large part of the PAAMS systems cost from what I have read. Therefore additional radars should not break the bank as we would only be paying for the cost of manufacturing the radar system and as I said before T/R modules should have become much cheaper. The Artisan radar sets would be ideally fitted to the C2 alongside the CAMM missile system not that difficult as SMART-S and Artisan are similar Artisan weighing slightly less, there would also not be enough radar sets coming over for both classes.

There is/was some thinking that C2 should be based off the same hull however I think a new hull design would be prohibitively expensive compared to recycling the T45 hull design and using a proven C2 design. The C2 design is meant to be a multi-role patrol frigate for stations such as APT(N) or APT(S) something that could easily be fulfilled by the proposed Absalon clone. The idea that the C2 could be up armed in a crisis is a bit daft as where is the equipment going to come from within a few weeks’ notice? I don’t mean to seem rude and you are not the only person suggesting it. What would an Absalon need to be up armed with anyway it already carries 16 AShM, 2 CIWS, a decent load out of air defence missiles around 36 in canisters more if fitted with a VLS system quad packed with CAMM. For ASW the main role of the C1 the Absalon also has bow sonar and dual triple deck mounted torpedo tubes as well as the ability to carry 2 Merlin for ASW. The main thing missing between the 2 classes would be Towed array sonar which if needed could be fixed to the flex deck and fed out from one of the 2 rear doors. Although the problem is we won’t have spare TAS sets even if we can somehow get the shore based training sets deployed as well as the development set and manufacturers test set. There are actually 12 sets not 8 I kind of lied but 2 are shore based training sets, 1 is a development set for testing new ways of using the system and the final set is owned by the manufacturer for more testing etc. There was originally mean to be 16 sets ordered but you can guess what happened. Of course I could be wrong as I’m going from memory so feel free to correct me on that.

The reason I ask about hull numbers as I’ve heard and seen the numbers 8:12 for C1:C2 respectively on various forums from RN and ex-RN posters. I would love there to be more than 8 but tying hull numbers to TAS sets and upgraded T23 numbers seems logical to me coupled with my scepticism of the MoD you can see why I ask.

In my loopy lala land, I would like to see 12 T45, 12 C1 and 12 C2 giving the RN 36 escorts 4 more than what the SDR envisioned and yes there would be proper CVF’s to escort. That number of escorts should allow any major unit deploying to be well escorted e.g. a carrier could deploy with 2 T45 and 3 or more frigates somewhat like a US CBG. I would also when ordering the C2 buy 2 from Denmark and 2 from BAE whoever finishes on cost and time get the other 8 ships to build, not really politically possible without providing BAE with another 18 T45 hulls to build. Not all that expensive as economies of scale would actually come into play and Absalon cost under £200 Million a hull for when 2 were bought. I’ve rambled enough for now thanks for reading.

Regarding CVF, I think the chances of it being cancelled are very low indeed, not just militarily but politically and economically. The furore it would create in shipbuilding communities – one of which is next door to Gordon Brown’s constituency – means that any decision would not be taken before the General election for political reasons. Therefore by the time the Strategic Defence Review makes its report the project will be even more far gone and definitely too difficult to cancel.

Personally I am not a fan of the CVF concept, but we have to deal with facts on the ground and CVF is a reality. In hindisght I think we missed a trick, at least 2 or preferably 3 smaller carriers of say 30,000 tons would have been more flexible. We could have used the project work for Ocean’s replacement too.

Woah lots to respond to there:

First – Radars should be coming across from T23 to C1/2 so Sampson is out. And on top of that, it is a very expensive piece of kit. Keep in mid 50% of the cost of a T45 goes on the PAAMS systems (Aster, Sampson etc).

Second – I believe CAMM was shown quad packed in the youtube video by BMT of its Venator concept design, I assume they know what’s going on. I’d be happy yo lose 10km of range from an Aster 15 if it meant 4x the missile loadout.

As a side note I think Venator is an excellent C3 concept, minus the folding hangar, proper hangar or no hangar please. Preferably full hangar since C3 is meant to be doing a lot more away from home waters than its predecessors.

Third – Just thought, isn’t C2 meant to be a more stripped down version of C1, ie. fewer fancy bits? I can’t see a T45 being used for both. I would hope that the Absalon idea sticks though, it is pretty ideal for C2, it also adds some more voice to buying another Merlin batch for the RN so we can fully equip them (either that or a Merlin and Wildcat).

Next – On the subject of helicopters – These are the most versatile and most useful parts of the ship, I would like to move to the MQ8 for C3 yet, technology needs to mature, more roles need to be covered, as does the necessary ability to provide some transport capability. The Wildcat has been ordered and will not be the worst imaginable solution in the maritime environment, so i’m happy to see it on the way. (Vested interest, I don’t want to see Yeovil wither and die either).

Just to reiterate, CVF is too far gone to be cancelled, so stop toying with the idea, pretty please.

On LPH’s – I really can’t support Mistral as a suitable replacement for Ocean. It’s commercial build standards coupled with complete lack of a proper defensive armament means that it’d need constant escort for almost any task. The French couldn’t use it properly when it evacuated EU citizens from Lebanon in 2006 whilst Bulwark did the work for it. We’d either have to upgrade it’s defenses (for which it is not that well designed) or go for an alternative – either the new Spanish or Italian “carriers” would be my first choice, to give some operational flexibility to a carrier group (1 CVF, 1 LPH) that can releive pressure on the main carrier (see Falklands War).

To whoever asked me for a source on my C1/C2 numbers, can’t remember where they’re from, sorry. But they are over a year old. I’m fairly sure it was an MOD quote though. Personally i’d like to see C2 as a stripped down C1, so that if it comes down to it, it can be upgraded fairly rapidly to deal with threats. As for C1, i’m hoping the discrepancy between TAS numbers and my hull numbers is due to the TAS either being modular and moving about as ships are sent itno refit, or that we are getting a few General Purpose frigates as well as the dedicated and expensive ASW things that currently do almost all jobs in the fleet.

I’m sure i’ve missed some points, i’ll address them later.

First of all I’m rolling all over the place laughing posting while people are writing etc. I’m doing the same thing was writing this when I wandered off for a wee bit came back was about to post but Jed had posted.

Grim- could you tell me where the numbers for FSC have been suggested by a recent official source? The C1 numbers have been fixed in people’s minds by the number of Type 2087 TAS in ordered and in service which is around 8 sets so many believe that they will simply be moved across. Additional sets would be hard to manufacture as they would have been out of production for a decent length of time when it comes to finally ordering C1 hulls and equipment. It’s been a widely held belief of forumers that the C1 will use the Artisan radar, CAMM and CIC from upgraded T23’s as well as the TAS. MCM will be performed mainly by off board systems and we have already started to do so in areas. This is driven both by commercial technology for surveying and military requirements for unmanned systems and mine hunting equipment. Many of these systems are designed to fit in a standard 20’ ISO container which could be added to a C3 hull or C2 for mine hunting at standoff ranges.

Jed- The point about everything up front on the T45 is a very good point I also don’t like that arrangement. CAMM will be slightly more than a point defence system and will have the advantage of being quad packed into the same space, AFAIK range will be 20+km as it’s based on a slightly bigger ASRAAM. I hope the assumption of quad packing is correct I’ve seen it brought up in forums quite a bit as well as possibly in the RINA Warship Technology magazine. Fair point it should be simple and low risk to modify what is essentially a big open space on the Absalon. We are however talking about the MoD If easily possible and worth it then yup we could go for it as long as it doesn’t cost anything but peanuts. For a new LPH class Mistral would be ideal 2 please, or if we had no carrier I would be looking at the Spanish Juan Carlos 1 class or Canberra class as the Aussies call it. If we dropped the carriers the RN would be somewhere on par with what the RAN is becoming which would be a tad embarrassing for the English.

A new series of Warship is/was available; it was on a while ago so Season 1 is missing as well as Ep1 of Season 1. Season 2 is about Op Taurus and season one was about one of the carriers. http://demand.five.tv/Series.aspx?seriesBaseName=Warship You might need to be in the UK to watch that if so it’s proxy time.

Euan – we must have been typing at the same time, so now I will respond to your comments.

Radars – OK, if Samson is not outlandishly expensive, keep it for the C1.

Quad packed CAMM – is this an assumption that CAMM will be ‘quad packed’ into Sylver launcher cells ? I have not seen it mentioned anywhere. See my response to Grim ref Aster versus CAMM.

C2 – Absalon – OK I understand ref risk of modifications, I just think we dont need the full length flex deck and space could be used better, there does not seem to be a great deal of risk in subdividing a large open space into two deck and some more water tight compartments. But, I could live with the design exactly as it is.

C3 – Yay, the more the merrier !

HMS Ocean – I was suggesting we cant afford a new LPH. However should CVF cancellation savings be available (sorry Grim !) then if we could afford to replace her, I would go with another simple off the shelf purchase – this time of the French Mistral class. I also agree that if she is replaced in her LPH role, then HMS Ocean should become RFA Ocean for a long life as the aviation training ship !

Is there a new series of Warship on the telly in the UK ? I remember watching it as a boy in the early 80′s when it was on a Leander class frigate, can’t remember which one though !

In response to questions from Dominic and Grim:

Dominic says “why the new missile type” – NSM3 instead of Harpoon – because its better, because the ships carrying it won’t be ready for a while and because its not that great an investment or drain on the logistics – in fact eventually replace all Harpoon’s with it.

Grim – ref placing Harpoons on T45 C1 derivative – simply because I don’t like the vulnerability implications of main gun, main VLS and Harpoons all up for’d in front of the bridge – that is my only reason though.

Grim – numbers. I agree, but I was trying to be conservative and consider the current budgetary constraints, plus I have upped the numbers of T45 by 2, so it seemed sensible to drop C1 by 2 – however if we could do the 8 / 10 / 12 then that would be better obviously !

Grim – introducing new type of helo: Not casually, but if you read all the other postings on here, there are really no fans at all of the AW 159 Lynx Wildcat, so I am just suggesting replacing it with a cheaper (albeit less flexible) alternative in the MQ8. Various articles suggest the C3 should have a helo in some roles, such as ocean patrol / policing role. In the MCM role the MQ8 could carry something like the USN ‘Magic Lantern” EO system for detecting mines in shallow water. So, not my idea really, but just trying to simplify the concept by going a cheaper, unmanned route.

Grim – Aster 15 versus CAMM – why would CAMM be a wiser choice ? Aster is a far more capable missile, I simply suggested the Aster 15 only because that means a cheaper radar than the PAAM’s fast spinning phased array (SAMPSON). Aster 15 still has longer range, can provide mutual support by attacking crossing targets, and CAMM is going to be a point defence system from what I can tell.

Grim – MCM – I absolutely did not say there is no need for MCM. I said use of the C3 in the MCM role suggests the end of small specialist ships – meaning Hunt or Sandown classes, designed to operate in the North Sea / English Channel. I agree that MCM tasking is likely to be much further abroad, hence a 2000 tonne plus ‘minehunter’ in the shape of the C3. I have a campaign medal for MCM ops in the gulf during the Iran / Iraq war, so I am never going to ignore MCM ops !!

Grim – CVF – well apart from the fact that I am deliberately playing devils advocate, I did caveat the piece with the comment that we should cancel IF it is not too late. I also suggested that if we are “strategic raiding” with allies, then they can provide the carriers. If we are on or own – well tough shit if you don’t fund the navy properly.

Dominic – Hovercaft – basically my argument is “as well as” not “instead off” helicopters. MOD and Qinetic are working on a high speed catamaran / air cushion landing craft design, the prototype has just been launched. It is designed to carry 55 tonnes (5 x Viking) at 45 knots. I am just suggesting a few existing ‘off the shelf’ hovercraft, with Remote Weapons System mounted MG’s would be a nice to have for the RM.

Hope that clears up the questions !

Cheers :-)

Erm! Well I don’t have too many disagreements with anything that has been said.

First of all I am a carrier supporter as they are important assets and without them the UK will be dependent on allies to conduct missions away from home. The problem I see is that nobody is really going to loan us a carrier or allow us to fully command an important national asset, freely designate targets for someone else to bomb etc.

Points about the C1, I agree T45 derivative is common sense, The Radar choice could be a scaled down Sampson radar or depending on cost could even be a full Sampson array. This would be possible by taking advantage of lower T/R module production costs as AESA radar production for Eurofighter should be in full swing. R&D has already been fully completed for Sampson and we would already be ordering more for additional T45’s. This would open the possibility of using Aster 30 and dropping Aster 15 completely as it could be replaced in some aspects by quad packed CAMM. We have only ordered a very small batch of Aster 15 compared to Aster 30 if I remember correctly so it would not be too outlandish. APAR is not a good choice as it is an X-band radar and relies more upon the additional L band search radar, Sampson and Smart-S are S band radars so lie between X and L bands. Sampson would be fine without the L band search radar as BAE has often said although does better with an additional search radar for various reasons.

In regards to the Absalon class it already has substantial command facilities hence its name and they have already been tested by the Danish navy commanding CTF-150. I don’t think a C2 class ship should ever have to command anything larger and more complex than a dozen vessels from varying nations. So there is already plenty of room within existing command facilities and I doubt it would be worth the cost redesigning the ship to accommodate additional permanent facilities, also note the flex deck can be fitted with a containerised command facility. There is also plenty of space for the crew and they are said to be extremely comfortable ships and were designed with long deployments in mind. Of course that depends on what the Danes define as comfortable.

Crew numbers for Absalon:
- Operations division: 6 officers, 4 PO, 21 ratings
- Logistics division: 2 officers, 4 PO, 24 ratings
- Weapons- and Electronics division: 2 officers, 3 PO, 12 ratings
- Technical Division: 4 officers, 1 PO, 13 ratings

That’s 96 personnel by my count so add in the executive officers although they may be included in Op’s. That’s a base to work from with plenty of space left for ships flight and boarding teams before additional accommodation has to be added to the flex deck. Simply put I don’t think it would be worth the cost or risk modifying the structure.

The C3’s should be cheap enough to afford more than 12 after all we are ditching 20 odd vessels of varying capabilities with one type that’s a cost saving there. The C3 should be cheap under £100 million per hull more than that and questions need to be asked especially if we are building 12 or more. I think a production run of around 18 hulls upwards would be more suitable and remember I want a proper Coastguard to hand off fisheries and other UK EEZ patrol activities off to. A C3 design that is well thought out and built as well as produced in reasonable numbers should be cheap and flexible enough to win exports especially based on the fact that VT now BVT has experience in this area.

Onto HMS Ocean now, I would consider converting her to fulfil the role that RFA Argus currently carries out, it may sound weird but it makes some sense. If the ship is due for an extensive overhaul the work could be done concurrently to convert the ship and any conversion should not be too difficult. RFA Argus does need replaced at some point she is nearly 30 and has seen a busy career. HMS Oceans role would then be taken over by two new ships either off the shelf designs or an evolution of HMS Ocean. What do people think am I barking or does it make sense?

Hovercraft I agree with especially since they are off the shelf in use by Sweden and built in the UK what is there not to like. Dominic asks why, simply they can land people and equipment on much more coastline while doing so much faster than conventional landing craft, watch Warship and the episode featuring Bangladesh(I think it’s Warship?).

Just a couple of points:

You suggest using the T45 hull for C1 without much modification, which is fine, but you suggest using space freed by the radar for 8 Harpoons. The T45 hull already has space for 8 Harpoons, do you want another 8?

Next, is it really necessary to add a new missile type? If it were me i’d try and readjust my missiles to one type for the anti-ship and land attack roles. Similarly, you’ve casually suggested bringing in another new type of helicopter, unmanned it may be, but what role would it really fulfil on a C3 vessel, bearing in mind it’s intended roles?

You’ve also suggested 8 ships for C1. At present the requirement is set for 10, with the C2 and C3 numbers being the same as yours. You’re actually suggesting fewer hulls than the MOD whilst still advocating cancelling CVF (which is also a massive element to strategic raiding but you’ve ignored that).

I’d also ask why you want to put Aster 15′s on C1 when CAMM would be a more wise choice?

When it comes to C3, you say there is no need for MCMV, and yet one of the most reasonable threats that would require a Royal Navy response would be Iran mining Hormuz, through which a lot of our precious black stuff flows.

Lastly i’ll point out that the CVF IS too far gone to cancel.

I don’t want to end on a negative though because it was a very good post on the whole and I totally agree with the T45 and C2 concepts you’ve given. Well done.

Just two questions

Why the new missile type?
Why hovercraft over helicopters?

All our troop ships can carry Merlins or larger, indeed, Ocean/Invincible can probably squeeze on 20, which is 400+ marines a flight

Wow – that was fast ! Thank you :-)